ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 3rd May 2017, 10:26 AM   #161
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,730
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Not going to look up references, but it is well known that the x-rays coming from discrete sources such as stars and the like cannot account for the amount of X-rays bombarding us. Thus, there is a relatively anomalous x-ray background.
So no data, fine by me.

Your statement is an unsupported assertion
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 01:51 PM   #162
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 26,859
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So no data, fine by me.

Your statement is an unsupported assertion
Unsupported assertation seems to be the modus operandi of these guys.
Ask for a link or citation and you get half a page of word salad, with no links or citations.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 3rd May 2017 at 01:52 PM.
Mike! is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 02:01 PM   #163
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,720
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Yes there is just enough variation in intensity of the 21 cm line, coupled with doppler shifts, to sort out the spiral arms and relative motions within our Milky Way.
That is not what I wrote about:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Stating more ignorance does not make a good argument, markie. Astronomers map those hydrogen clouds using the 21 cm line. There is enough variation in the intensity to map out enormous hydrogen clouds winding around the visible parts of other galaxies. That is not your implication of a useless or undetectable "diffuse phenomena".

The mere fact that the 21 cm line is detected means that the spectral lines from your imaginary hydrinos would also be detected. Thus your Hydrino can be detected in the cosmos is a lie.
Emphasis added.

Astronomers look at an external galaxy in visible light and create a map of stars.
Astronomers look at an external galaxy in radio waves including 21 cm and create a map of neutral hydrogen clouds.

All light can be "blocked and scattered and diffused". Your assertion of that emphasizes the delusional nature of your Hydrino can be detected in the cosmos post. You want your imaginary particles to
  • Emit no light at all (dark matter) ! and
  • Emit spectral lines that have detected and
  • Emit spectral lines that cannot be detected because they are "blocked and scattered and diffused" and
  • Emit x-rays

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd May 2017 at 02:14 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 02:22 PM   #164
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So no data, fine by me.

Your statement is an unsupported assertion
An article I read a few years ago is the basis of much of my thinking on what is known about cosmic background radiation. Take it for what it's worth:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-noise-space/

Here's the last paragraph, my bold:

Quote:
Still, the night is not pitch-black; it is pervaded by the cosmic background. Although we have made much progress in explaining it, we have much left to do. Whereas 19th-century thinkers had to explain why the night sky isn’t bright, modern cosmologists must figure out why it isn’t completely dark.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 02:51 PM   #165
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by markie View Post
An article I read a few years ago is the basis of much of my thinking on what is known about cosmic background radiation. Take it for what it's worth:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-noise-space/

Here's the last paragraph, my bold:
And you have not been the least bit curious about what astronomers have discovered in the 15 years since that article was originally written?

Did you not wonder what data from the many x-ray observatories have revealed, in those 15 years? Hint: re-read some of hecd2's recent posts ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 02:55 PM   #166
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
A bit like the cosmic microwave background radiation eh?
Although I find myself disinclined to respond to your more recent (and increasingly snarky) posts, I'll say this: No, it's not at all like the CMB. The CMB is a perfect blackbody emission curve from an extremely hot early universe, which maintains it shape to this day but has been downshifted in frequency by orders of magnitude. The 'noise' I speak of is different entirely.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 02:57 PM   #167
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,730
Originally Posted by markie View Post
An article I read a few years ago is the basis of much of my thinking on what is known about cosmic background radiation. Take it for what it's worth:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-noise-space/

Here's the last paragraph, my bold:
That doesn't really say how hydrinos create the the CMB does it?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 03:33 PM   #168
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Although I find myself disinclined to respond to your more recent (and increasingly snarky) posts, I'll say this: No, it's not at all like the CMB. The CMB is a perfect blackbody emission curve from an extremely hot early universe, which maintains it shape to this day but has been downshifted in frequency by orders of magnitude. The 'noise' I speak of is different entirely.
Although I find myself disinclined to respond to your more recent (and increasingly incoherent) posts, I'll say this: Cosmic backgrounds are not at all like what you have been describing them as. Like the CMB, they (e.g. CIB, CXB, even COB) have distinct and increasingly well-understood spectra and angular power distributions. In fact, it is these deviations from isotropy and the spectral hardness (for the CXB) which led to hypotheses on their origins, hypotheses which have, by and large, been shown to be consistent with the data.

Hydrinos not required, nor found. Just like unicorns, and other fantastic fictions.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 03:45 PM   #169
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
And you have not been the least bit curious about what astronomers have discovered in the 15 years since that article was originally written?

Did you not wonder what data from the many x-ray observatories have revealed, in those 15 years? Hint: re-read some of hecd2's recent posts ...
Thanks, and to be more precise he could look at the many papers dating back almost 15 years to the 7Ms Chandra Deep Field South and the 2Ms Chandra Deep Field North surveys.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 04:10 PM   #170
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,642
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Although I find myself disinclined to respond to your more recent (and increasingly snarky) posts, I'll say this: No, it's not at all like the CMB. The CMB is a perfect blackbody emission curve from an extremely hot early universe, which maintains it shape to this day but has been downshifted in frequency by orders of magnitude. The 'noise' I speak of is different entirely.


I just heard back from the Creationists. They already have a chapter on Hydrino formation being responsible for the "illusion" of cosmic background radiation. I've been asked to thank you. Apparently you're going to be quoted in the book.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 04:21 PM   #171
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by markie View Post
An article I read a few years ago is the basis of much of my thinking on what is known about cosmic background radiation. Take it for what it's worth:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-noise-space/

Here's the last paragraph, my bold:

Quote:
Still, the night is not pitch-black; it is pervaded by the cosmic background. Although we have made much progress in explaining it, we have much left to do. Whereas 19th-century thinkers had to explain why the night sky isn’t bright, modern cosmologists must figure out why it isn’t completely dark.

Instead of citing data, a "hydrino-of-the-gaps argument"? markie, your earlier posts required knowledge of physics to refute; lately, not so much.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 04:27 PM   #172
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,167
Any sign of a generator?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 04:31 PM   #173
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Suppose you read some decade+ old popsci article about the CXB (Cosmic X-ray Background), and were curious to get some idea of what more recent results from astronomers were, concerning the CXB. Maybe you were interested in this because you had, or believed in, a pet theory that some crackpot notion of "below ground state" hydrogen could emit x-rays. Somehow.

Before putting fingers to keyboard, to post in a thread in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of ISF, one where you knew there are several ISF members who are avid readers and have strong backgrounds in highly relevant parts of physics and astronomy, you might think a few minutes spent doing your own research might be a sound investment, no?

So, a modest suggestion on what you might do; should take no more than a few minutes ...

Go to arXiv.org. Enter CXB in the search box, and select Titles. The first hit is (likely to be) Cappelluti+ (2012), "The nature of the unresolved extragalactic soft CXB". You note that this is already a decade more recent than the SciAm article which had piqued your interest. You skim the abstract:
Originally Posted by Cappelluti+ (2012)
In this paper we investigate the power spectrum of the unresolved 0.5-2 keV CXB with deep Chandra 4 Ms observations in the CDFS. We measured a signal which, on scales >30", is significantly higher than the Shot-Noise and is increasing with the angular scale. We interpreted this signal as the joint contribution of clustered undetected sources like AGN, Galaxies and Inter-Galactic-Medium (IGM). The power of unresolved cosmic sources fluctuations accounts for \sim 12% of the 0.5-2 keV extragalactic CXB. Overall, our modeling predicts that \sim 20% of the unresolved CXB flux is made by low luminosity AGN, \sim 25% by galaxies and \sim 55% by the IGM (Inter Galactic Medium). We do not find any direct evidence of the so called Warm Hot Intergalactic Medium (i.e. matter with 10^5K<T<10^7K and density contrast {\delta} <1000), but we estimated that it could produce about 1/7 of the unresolved CXB. We placed an upper limit to the space density of postulated X-ray-emitting early black hole at z>7.5 and compared it with SMBH evolution models.
Cool! Although there's a lot you don't really understand, it's clear that, at least in 2012, much of the CXB remains unknown (apparently). And that both its variation with angular scale and its spectrum are fairly well constrained (very important if you believe in hydrinos).

Next, you click on the "NASA ADS" link (bottom right), to get the ADS entry for this paper. Then click on the link "Citations to the article (27)". Wow! Just reading the titles leaves you with the overwhelming impression that an awful lot of really hard work has been done, in just the half-decade since your first arXiv hit was published!

You note that third from the top (i.e. third most recent) is another Cappelluti+ paper, Cappelluti+ (2017) "The Chandra COSMOS Legacy Survey: Energy Spectrum of the Cosmic X-Ray Background and Constraints on Undetected Populations". You click on the link to read the abstract:
Originally Posted by Cappelluti+ (2017)
Using Chandra observations in the 2.15 deg2 COSMOS-legacy field, we present one of the most accurate measurements of the Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB) spectrum to date in the [0.3-7] keV energy band. The CXB has three distinct components: contributions from two Galactic collisional thermal plasmas at kT ˜ 0.27 and 0.07 keV and an extragalactic power law with a photon spectral index Γ = 1.45 ± 0.02. The 1 keV normalization of the extragalactic component is 10.91 ± 0.16 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Removing all X-ray-detected sources, the remaining unresolved CXB is best fit by a power law with normalization 4.18 ± 0.26 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1 and photon spectral index Γ = 1.57 ± 0.10. Removing faint galaxies down to {i}{AB}˜ 27{--}28 leaves a hard spectrum with {{Γ }}˜ 1.25 and a 1 keV normalization of ˜1.37 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. This means that ˜91% of the observed CXB is resolved into detected X-ray sources and undetected galaxies. Unresolved sources that contribute ˜8%-9% of the total CXB show marginal evidence of being harder and possibly more obscured than resolved sources. Another ˜1% of the CXB can be attributed to still undetected star-forming galaxies and absorbed active galactic nuclei. According to these limits, we investigate a scenario where early black holes totally account for non-source CXB fraction and constrain some of their properties. In order to not exceed the remaining CXB and the z˜ 6 accreted mass density, such a population of black holes must grow in Compton-thick envelopes with {N}H > 1.6 × 1025 cm-2 and form in extremely low-metallicity environments ({Z}⊙ )˜ {10}-3.
OMG! Looks like the CXB is pretty well nailed-down, at least that part of it investigated by this paper.

On a whim, you click the arXiv e-print link (top left), and open the PDF document. A great deal of the paper is gobbledygook to you, and you remember that there are fellow ISF members who can read papers like this and understand them pretty well on first go through. You're also struck by just how much more professional this paper is, in terms of its presentation and logic (as well as you can follow it) compared with the only one of Mills "validation" papers you actually read ... no wonder so many of your fellow ISF members are so down in Mills!

15 minutes have passed, 20 tops. If nothing else, you now have a better appreciation of just how well the CXB is characterized, and how utterly lame the post you originally intended to post would seem, had you actually posted it. And why it would - for this ISF audience - only have added to their belief that Mills' hydrinos are as fictional as unicorns.

Note: There are, of course, CXB papers published in the last decade or so that would not appear in the references of either Cappelluti+ paper, nor which would cite either. So if you were truly interested in getting a good overview of recent findings re the CXB, you'd have to do some more "searching of the literature". But at least you'd be off to a good start.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 05:13 PM   #174
ViewsofMars
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 63
I'd like to share this with everyone.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Research High Lights
A Closer Look at Nucleosynthesis

July/August 2007

Here is an excerpt from page two:

Three Stellar Processes

A part from hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium, which formed during the first three minutes after the big bang, most of the elements in stars are created in one of three nucleosynthesis reactions. Nuclear fusion creates the elements in a young star. Two neutron-capture reactions, called the slow (s) and rapid (r) processes, kick in as a star ages and dies, forming most of the elements heavier than iron. In the fusion reaction, nuclei of lightweight elements slam together and fuse, releasing large amounts of energy and generating the nuclei of heavier elements. Lightweight elements, which have the fewest protons, appear near the top of the periodic table. For instance, nuclei of hydrogen—the lightest element, with one proton—can fuse to form helium. Helium nuclei can in turn create carbon. Carbon becomes part of the fuel for producing even heavier elements, such as oxygen. Because both nuclei carry a positive charge, they cannot fuse unless they overcome the Coulomb repulsion—an electrostatic force that tends to separate them and prevent interaction.

https://str.llnl.gov/str/JulAug07/pdfs/07_07.4.pdf

Thanks to everyone for making my day a happy one.
ViewsofMars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 05:27 PM   #175
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by ViewsofMars View Post
I'd like to share this with everyone.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Research High Lights
A Closer Look at Nucleosynthesis

July/August 2007

Here is an excerpt from page two:

Three Stellar Processes

A part from hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium, which formed during the first three minutes after the big bang, most of the elements in stars are created in one of three nucleosynthesis reactions. Nuclear fusion creates the elements in a young star. Two neutron-capture reactions, called the slow (s) and rapid (r) processes, kick in as a star ages and dies, forming most of the elements heavier than iron. In the fusion reaction, nuclei of lightweight elements slam together and fuse, releasing large amounts of energy and generating the nuclei of heavier elements. Lightweight elements, which have the fewest protons, appear near the top of the periodic table. For instance, nuclei of hydrogen—the lightest element, with one proton—can fuse to form helium. Helium nuclei can in turn create carbon. Carbon becomes part of the fuel for producing even heavier elements, such as oxygen. Because both nuclei carry a positive charge, they cannot fuse unless they overcome the Coulomb repulsion—an electrostatic force that tends to separate them and prevent interaction.

https://str.llnl.gov/str/JulAug07/pdfs/07_07.4.pdf

Thanks to everyone for making my day a happy one.
OK. And your point is what, exactly?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 05:29 PM   #176
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Any sign of a generator?
Yes and it's being shipped in to waiting customers by the Flying Dutchman crewed by bigfoot and commanded by Captain J. Swallow.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 09:38 PM   #177
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Yes and it's being shipped in to waiting customers by the Flying Dutchman crewed by bigfoot and commanded by Captain J. Swallow.
Sparrow.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 09:47 PM   #178
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,265
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Sparrow.
What a lark.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 02:45 AM   #179
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,642
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Sparrow.


Wait, are they being carried by African or European swallows?
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 04:12 AM   #180
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,290
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Any sign of a generator?
I have ordered the Giant Coffee Mug sized 50Kw Mills Hydrinomax camping generator for $299.00 plus tax. I need a lot of power while I'm out in the woods cooking bacon and baiting Bigfoot.

Scheduled delivery is May 1, 2015.

Tracking says it has left the NJ facility.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 06:45 AM   #181
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Sparrow.
No Swallow he's a third cousin and less intelligent than J. Sparrow
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 06:46 AM   #182
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Wait, are they being carried by African or European swallows?
The rare Antarctic penguin swallows
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 09:09 AM   #183
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
No Swallow he's a third cousin and less intelligent than J. Sparrow
LOL
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 09:58 AM   #184
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,290
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Sparrow.
Sparrow in the original movie, but Swallow in the parody of same.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 10:19 AM   #185
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,090
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
The rare Antarctic penguin swallows


Hey, what you and your penguin do in the bedroom is none of our business!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 10:31 AM   #186
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Double

Last edited by hecd2; 4th May 2017 at 10:33 AM.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 10:32 AM   #187
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Suppose you read some decade+ old popsci article about the CXB (Cosmic X-ray Background), and were curious to get some idea of what more recent results from astronomers were, concerning the CXB. Maybe you were interested in this because you had, or believed in, a pet theory that some crackpot notion of "below ground state" hydrogen could emit x-rays. Somehow.

SNIPPED

Originally Posted by [B
Cappelluti+ (2017)][/b]
Using Chandra observations in the 2.15 deg2 COSMOS-legacy field, we present one of the most accurate measurements of the Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB) spectrum to date in the [0.3-7] keV energy band. The CXB has three distinct components: contributions from two Galactic collisional thermal plasmas at kT ˜ 0.27 and 0.07 keV and an extragalactic power law with a photon spectral index Γ = 1.45 ± 0.02. The 1 keV normalization of the extragalactic component is 10.91 ± 0.16 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Removing all X-ray-detected sources, the remaining unresolved CXB is best fit by a power law with normalization 4.18 ± 0.26 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1 and photon spectral index Γ = 1.57 ± 0.10. Removing faint galaxies down to {i}{AB}˜ 27{--}28 leaves a hard spectrum with {{Γ }}˜ 1.25 and a 1 keV normalization of ˜1.37 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. This means that ˜91% of the observed CXB is resolved into detected X-ray sources and undetected galaxies. Unresolved sources that contribute ˜8%-9% of the total CXB show marginal evidence of being harder and possibly more obscured than resolved sources. Another ˜1% of the CXB can be attributed to still undetected star-forming galaxies and absorbed active galactic nuclei. According to these limits, we investigate a scenario where early black holes totally account for non-source CXB fraction and constrain some of their properties. In order to not exceed the remaining CXB and the z˜ 6 accreted mass density, such a population of black holes must grow in Compton-thick envelopes with {N}H > 1.6 × 1025 cm-2 and form in extremely low-metallicity environments ({Z}⊙ )˜ {10}-3.


Note: There are, of course, CXB papers published in the last decade or so that would not appear in the references of either Cappelluti+ paper, nor which would cite either. So if you were truly interested in getting a good overview of recent findings re the CXB, you'd have to do some more "searching of the literature". But at least you'd be off to a good start.
This^^ . Excellent post.

And I love these units: keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Energy per unit area per second per unit solid angle per unit energy - or, to interpret it physically, power density incident at the detector per unit solid angle of the sky per 1 keV spectral bin at 1keV photon energy.

And yes, as I've been saying the cosmic x-ray background is not the mystery it once was.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 10:39 AM   #188
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,090
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
And yes, as I've been saying the cosmic x-ray background is not the mystery it once was.


Yes, who could have imagined that actual scientists might actually make progress on answering questions? Have they learned nothing from Mills?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 05:06 PM   #189
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
I'm becoming increasingly worried that, in producing hydrinos for the last 20-odd years, BLP and its antecedents might have been exposing its workers and the public to X-ray radiation. If what markie said is true, the production of hydrinos has an X-ray signature. Is there any evidence that there is a local excess in cancers generally caused by ionising radiation in the Cranbury NJ area?

Last edited by hecd2; 4th May 2017 at 05:12 PM. Reason: Trenton -> Cranbury
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 06:05 PM   #190
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,642
Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 2

Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I'm becoming increasingly worried that, in producing hydrinos for the last 20-odd years, BLP and its antecedents might have been exposing its workers and the public to X-ray radiation. If what markie said is true, the production of hydrinos has an X-ray signature. Is there any evidence that there is a local excess in cancers generally caused by ionising radiation in the Cranbury NJ area?

Pompton Lakes just over an hour away from the Mills lab:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/12...ancer.amp.html

Toms River, also about a mile away from the Mills Lab:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elemen...d-by-water/amp

Damn.

Last edited by halleyscomet; 4th May 2017 at 06:09 PM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 06:53 PM   #191
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Sparrow in the original movie, but Swallow in the parody of same.
Ah, gotcha!


Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
This^^ . Excellent post.

And I love these units: keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Energy per unit area per second per unit solid angle per unit energy - or, to interpret it physically, power density incident at the detector per unit solid angle of the sky per 1 keV spectral bin at 1keV photon energy.

And yes, as I've been saying the cosmic x-ray background is not the mystery it once was.
Nope. Didn't understand a word, but it sounds damned saucy!
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 09:31 PM   #192
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Hey, what you and your penguin do in the bedroom is none of our business!
....well it involves four tins of kippers, a live sprat and a whole gutted deep fried whale with a touch of tartar sauce that and Herb Alpert music in the background
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 11:10 PM   #193
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,265
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
....well it involves four tins of kippers, a live sprat and a whole gutted deep fried whale with a touch of tartar sauce that and Herb Alpert music in the background
ahem. Where's the cowbell? You, sir, are a cad and a bounder!
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 11:42 PM   #194
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,167
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
....well it involves four tins of kippers, a live sprat and a whole gutted deep fried whale with a touch of tartar sauce that and Herb Alpert music in the background
Is that from the latest press release from BLP? Sounds more realistic than their past explanations.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 08:04 AM   #195
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Nope. Didn't understand a word, but it sounds damned saucy!
Well, while we're waiting for the next member of the Mills supporters relay team, I'm going to be a geek and explain those units for other geeks. So, markie has said that the source of the cosmic x-ray background - the CXB (the weak X-rays coming from all over the sky that seems like a more-or-less uniform background) has not been explained and that it could be explained by X-rays emitted when hydrinos are formed from hydrogen atoms. Both Jean Tate and I have been explaining to markie that the CXB is not the mystery it was 20 years ago, and Jean posted the abstract of the paper in question.

So, that paper is attempting to take the CXB from 0.3keV to 7keV and subtract every known source of the CXB, leaving an unexplained residue. By subtracting the characteristics (intensity and spectral shape) of known sources from the characteristics of the total CXB, gives information about the characteristics of the unexplained portion. The unexplained portion is not fully unexplained, however, because there is a hypothesis that it arises from the accretion of matter to form black holes in the early universe (at z>6). The authiors then use the characteristics of the residual portion of CXB to constrain the conditions for the formation of those early black holes.

Ok, so what the authors need to do in order to subtract the known sources of the CXB from the total CXB to give the residue, is to make sure that the intensity (that is the rate of X-ray energy arriving on Earth per unit area) and spectral shape (how fast the intensity changes with X-rays of different wavelengths) are presented in a similar way (or normalised) so that the subtraction can be done. The study is looking at X-rays from 0.3keV photon energy (about 4.1nm wavelength) to 7keV (0.17nm wavelength), so the authors choose to normalise at 1keV.

So then the characteristics of the CXB, and each source component is given by its intensity at 1keV and its spectral index (which gives the slope of the change of intensity as a function of wavelength or photon energy). So the fancy units in question give the intensity at 1keV. Intensity is defined as energy incident on a surface per unit area per second and this can be represented by keV cm-2 s-1. But because the X-rays are coming fom all over the sky, and the instrunments are looking out in a particular direction, and for different sources looking at greater and smaller areas of the sky, one has to make the area of the sky the same for all the measurements and so the units become intensity per unit sold angle, or intensity per steradian, or keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1. Finally they don't want the total intensity at all wavelegths or photon energies, but just the intensity around 1keV, so they create a 1keV bin around 1keV and include only the energy from X-rays falling within that bin. So the intensity at 1keV is given by intensity per unit solid per keV, or keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1.

Interestingly, because they have normalised to 1keV, then every keV measured is equivalent to one photon, so in this case the units can also also be given, and is given in the paper, as photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, which is obviously dimensionally identical.

And the actual numbers? They are in the abstract. The total X-ray intensity coming from beyond our galaxy is 10.91 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Removing all resolved X-ray sources (sources that have been imaged with X-ray telescopes - mainly AGNs) leaves 4.18 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. After subtracting unresolved contributions from sources similar to those resolved but beyond the resolution limit of the survey, they are left with 1.37 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. That's 91% of the total CXB taking into account the lower spectral index of the residue, so 9% is left as the contribution from the early black hole formation.

Back to fish now.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 08:27 AM   #196
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,941
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Well, while we're waiting for the next member of the Mills supporters relay team, I'm going to be a geek and explain those units for other geeks. So, markie has said that the source of the cosmic x-ray background - the CXB (the weak X-rays coming from all over the sky that seems like a more-or-less uniform background) has not been explained and that it could be explained by X-rays emitted when hydrinos are formed from hydrogen atoms. Both Jean Tate and I have been explaining to markie that the CXB is not the mystery it was 20 years ago, and Jean posted the abstract of the paper in question.

So, that paper is attempting to take the CXB from 0.3keV to 7keV and subtract every known source of the CXB, leaving an unexplained residue. By subtracting the characteristics (intensity and spectral shape) of known sources from the characteristics of the total CXB, gives information about the characteristics of the unexplained portion. The unexplained portion is not fully unexplained, however, because there is a hypothesis that it arises from the accretion of matter to form black holes in the early universe (at z>6). The authiors then use the characteristics of the residual portion of CXB to constrain the conditions for the formation of those early black holes.

Ok, so what the authors need to do in order to subtract the known sources of the CXB from the total CXB to give the residue, is to make sure that the intensity (that is the rate of X-ray energy arriving on Earth per unit area) and spectral shape (how fast the intensity changes with X-rays of different wavelengths) are presented in a similar way (or normalised) so that the subtraction can be done. The study is looking at X-rays from 0.3keV photon energy (about 4.1nm wavelength) to 7keV (0.17nm wavelength), so the authors choose to normalise at 1keV.

So then the characteristics of the CXB, and each source component is given by its intensity at 1keV and its spectral index (which gives the slope of the change of intensity as a function of wavelength or photon energy). So the fancy units in question give the intensity at 1keV. Intensity is defined as energy incident on a surface per unit area per second and this can be represented by keV cm-2 s-1. But because the X-rays are coming fom all over the sky, and the instrunments are looking out in a particular direction, and for different sources looking at greater and smaller areas of the sky, one has to make the area of the sky the same for all the measurements and so the units become intensity per unit sold angle, or intensity per steradian, or keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1. Finally they don't want the total intensity at all wavelegths or photon energies, but just the intensity around 1keV, so they create a 1keV bin around 1keV and include only the energy from X-rays falling within that bin. So the intensity at 1keV is given by intensity per unit solid per keV, or keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1.

Interestingly, because they have normalised to 1keV, then every keV measured is equivalent to one photon, so in this case the units can also also be given, and is given in the paper, as photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, which is obviously dimensionally identical.

And the actual numbers? They are in the abstract. The total X-ray intensity coming from beyond our galaxy is 10.91 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. Removing all resolved X-ray sources (sources that have been imaged with X-ray telescopes - mainly AGNs) leaves 4.18 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. After subtracting unresolved contributions from sources similar to those resolved but beyond the resolution limit of the survey, they are left with 1.37 keV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 keV-1. That's 91% of the total CXB taking into account the lower spectral index of the residue, so 9% is left as the contribution from the early black hole formation.

Back to fish now.
I, for one, appreciate the extra information. You'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but how does all this dispute the claim of the existence of Hydrinos™ then?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 09:00 AM   #197
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Is that from the latest press release from BLP? Sounds more realistic than their past explanations.
Yes an astute observation by you. The press release from BLP and my comment are both 'fishy'.

lol
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 09:12 AM   #198
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by The Norseman
I, for one, appreciate the extra information. You'll have to excuse my ignorance here, but how does all this dispute the claim of the existence of Hydrinos™ then?
They claim that hydrinos are produced naturally. In fact they claim that hydrinos are Dark Matter and so constitute 6 - 7 times as much mass in the Universe as does hydrogen. They also insist that the hydrogen to hydrino transition produces a characteristic spectrum including X-rays and that hydrinos, once produced, emit photons of a wide range of wavelengths from rotational and vibrational transitions. Trouble is, we don't see any of these characteristic lines in astronomical spectra. Markie originally argued that the hydrino emissions were in the various cosmic backgrounds. When it was explained to him that the backgrounds were largely accounted for, he fell back on a popular article he read a long time ago that suggested that the cosmic X-ray background was unexplained. But in the years since then there has been a huge amount learned about the X-ray band from telescopes such as Chandra, Swift and XMM-Newton. This paper shows that the cosmic X-ray background is largely accounted for and leaves no place for X-rays from hydrino production to hide. So, either there are no hydrinos in the cosmos, or they don't behave the way the Mills theory says they should. I know where I'd lay my money.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 10:30 AM   #199
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,090
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
So, either there are no hydrinos in the cosmos, or they don't behave the way the Mills theory says they should. I know where I'd lay my money.

So, you're just ignoring the possibility that every other scientist in the world is just incompetent?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2017, 10:41 AM   #200
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
So, you're just ignoring the possibility that every other scientist in the world is just incompetent?
Oh, you mean they are there but the idiots just can't see them. That sounds a bit fishy to me, so I'll stick with my original conclusion.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.